Ron Paul Is Seriously Flawed As A Candidate

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Ron Paul

Now before you start jumping on me and calling me names, please understand that the title is what one of his supporters is saying about him in a recent post, and I’m guessing a lot more of his faithful are having the same fear too.

From dmiessler.com:

First off, let me just say that I am a major Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammedpromoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.

It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his ideological flaws do not exist. We are ignoring his extreme and illogical views because we’re so smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness to logically evaluate him as a complete candidate is being overridden by our surprise and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.

In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his positives while ignoring the negatives.

I’ve often questioned how viable Paul is as a candidate, especially for the GOP nomination, with such a singular viewpoint on how the country should be run. Many of his supporters have suggested that a Ron Paul presidency would have to be one about compromise because Paul would never have the votes to push that singular agenda through. And fair enough, that’s viable in my mind.

But what about some of these other viewpoints the blogger points out?

  1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
  2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
  3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
  4. He’s Not For National Health Care
  5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
  6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

Now, far be it from me to speak for the Ron Paul crowd, but my guess is that many of you are completely okay with most of these. Maybe one thing on this list would be a big problem for you, but it’s probably different for most everybody. I also think the blogger raising these concerns seems to me to be rather liberal in his viewpoints because he says he’s in love with Ron Paul for his foreign policy views.

Which raise the questions: How many of Ron Paul’s liberal supporters will really support his bid for the presidency? And is it really just about the foreign policy views?

This is yet another reason why I think Paul will need to go 3rd party if he has any shot of actually winning. His appeal is broad, but his liberal supporters will fall off once they start to really dig into the issues. He’s a libertarian through and through and that appeals so much more to Republicans and Independents.

Parting shot from the blogger in question…

I pains me to have to write this, and I am not going to stop supporting him. I am not taking the sticker off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about Ron Paul’s campaign or about how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I’m going to keep talking about his positives. But in the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme views will destroy not only him but his ability to help our ailing country.

You can read more in my series about Ron Paul where I first asked supporters 7 questions and they gave me back great answers to all 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of them. Hope you find them useful.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 and is filed under Ron Paul. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

82 Responses to “Ron Paul Is Seriously Flawed As A Candidate”

  1. nick Says:

    LOL! thats a nice trick…

    You NEVER supported Ron Paul,

    but you say you do so people will question their faith in Ron Paul.

  2. Sammi Says:

    Paul’s support for radical individual liberty is why I support him. I know he’s probably not going to be nominated, because he is for more liberty (less government) than most people are willing to grant others, but I donate to his campaign mainly just to spread that libertarian philosophy of our Founders. If the liberals don’t like him, I don’t care. My main interest is that the left-statists as well as the right-statists become influenced by him, and hopefully converted. He see him mainly as an educator and influencer.

  3. TerdFerguson Says:

    Here’s another dose of reality…..No candidate exists that you or I or any person will agree with all their views. Every candidate is flawed. Every candidate has some ideas that any one person may not agree with. You’ve got to look at the whole picture and give more weight to the issues that a president can actually impact. For example, it always crack me up when people talk about abortion and I’m going to vote or not vote for this guy or that guy because he’s pro life or pro choice. How ridiculous. How much time do you think a president in his 4 year in office is going to spend on abortion? How much impact is he going to have on it? Let’s try ZERO.

    People need to focus on the actual issues that the president will be dealing with on a day to day basis and that he can actual have an impact on, like say, foreign policy, our economy, and running the country. Ron Paul has all the right ideas on these issues.

  4. rollie Says:

    your piece of shit aticle loses all credibility when you have the so-called supporter describe themself as a spammer. Get a life you fucking loser.

    btw, nice paypal link. Bet it gets a lot of clicks.

  5. Brian Says:

    No canidate is perfect. I have been sickened for yours by the same cookie cutter politicians that always say the same thing and end up doing nothing different. I am interested in Paul because he wants ME to have freedom, not so concerned about an Irai, cambodian, Japanese, Colombian etc etc. He thinks our government should be used to PROTECT Americans freedoms not be used to control us.

    I will be voting for Ron Paul. That won’t change.

  6. mike Says:

    I agree with Congressman Paul on all of his views except #6 on your list concerning global warming. I am willing to support him even though he holds this view because his views on the other issues most closely resemble mine. Everyone should vote for the candidate who’s positions most closely resemble their opinions on the issues, regardless of party affiliation. When evaluating candidates one should look not only at the kinds of things they say during an election cycle, but also at their actions when the elections are not close at hand. They should then think deeply about the issues that mean the most to them and the ones that will have the greatest impact on our country during the next presidency. Vote your heart and mind. Do not vote the lesser of two evils. When you do, your vote is truly wasted because the politicians see the votes not as votes against the opponent (which they commonly are) but as votes for the agenda of the person that received them. They therefore incorrectly assume that they are on the right track and the country wants the things they voted for.

  7. Mike Says:

    What does the blogger mean, “he does not believe in the separation of church and state?” Yes, he’s not for federally funded education, but he has no issue with state funded education. He’s not for national health care, or any other central economic planning. But he rarely has an issue with these initiatives at the local/state level.

    I’m not sure if this blogger who is being blogged about (happens all of the time unfortunately), is properly framing Dr. Paul’s positions. In fact, it’s possible that he put a bumper sticker on, claimed to do some spamming without first researching the candidate.

    Dr. Paul has a controversial platform very few people agree with entirely. But that’s no excuse for snippets of position to frame his ideology negatively.

  8. M Barnes Says:

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State.
    - Ron Paul’s stance on removing government from marriage is the perfect conservative position, and the only one that actually separates church and state.

    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    -Less middle man bureaucrats getting fat from money taken from us by force? More home schooling? More diversity in state programs? What is the problem?

    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
    -Thus lower tuitions.

    4. He’s Not For National Health Care
    -Ron Paul is for health care reform; removing the fascist monopolies and ponzi schemes from the market …and he’s a doctor.

    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
    -He would like to see states making more varied decisions so that people have a choice over what kind of community morals they have regarding the unborn …and he is a doctor: a baby doctor.

    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
    -Neither do most of the physical scientists I know. Not convincing enough to pick up a gun and put it to someone’s head as a solution at least …and he is a doctor… well versed in the physical sciences.

    What’s weird here is, each of these issues is being argued against Ron Paul in the same way socialists have been arguing for years against conservatives. Each of them are straw man fallacies and unreasonable.

  9. GetReal Says:

    dmeissler is a fake!

    I have never heard of one Ron Paul supporter ever refer to getting the word out as “spam.”

  10. Trey Says:

    How is Ron Paul against the separation of church and state?? That term is a misnomer and not in the constitution. All that is said is that Congress shall write no law establishing a religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So, constitutionally, the federal government is not to be involved (i.e. separate) in establishing a religious state, or banning the freedom to worship. Paul believes and supports that 100%.

  11. Johnnyb Says:

    A lot of people agree with Ron Paul on all of those stated positions including myself and most Republicans. The Federal Government has no business in education and they have done nothing to improve education in America. Please see 20/20′s report ‘Stupid in America’.

    Most people are not for national healthcare. Who really wants the same company that brought you the Katrina rescue providing for your healthcare? It would become a political football, and Ron Paul is right in saying that we should do everything that we can to restore the doctor patient relationship and get the corporations and government out of it.

    Roe V. Wade was a bad ruling. A majority of people disagree with Roe V. Wade which is why a supreme court ruling has become a political football.

    The case for made made global warming is weak at best, and might be an out right fraud. See ‘The great Global Warming Swindle’.

    Federally subsidized student loans have contributed to degree inflation. Think about how many stupid people you knew in college getting their degrees in fashion merchandizing, hospitality or communications. Wouldn’t it be better to leave college and make 30% more money due to the abscence of an income tax, rather than to get a couple of points shaved off your student loan?

  12. Aaron Says:

    **He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education**

    Not speaking for college. I dont think this is what he is talking about.

    This is a very good thing. The problem with public schools is no competition. What this does it take all the tax dollars you paying forcing your child to go to one school and return them to you in vouchers… you then spend your vouchers on any school you want… thus creating a market place where demand of high quality teachers is chosen by the market. This will increase learning and teachers pay… why is this bad thing?

    We had a entire lecture on it in my Advanced Economics class… im getting tired of people not researching things before judging it by his title. You pay for public school and are forced to choose one by where you live… this just lets you not pay the gov taxes on it anymore and lets you choose? wtf is wrong

  13. DDP Says:

    There will not be a candidate that fits your entire bill, ever. But, to me, Paul hammers the most important points for me: the federal deficit, the war(s?), torture, rollback of executive power.

    Personally, I’ll take these issues along with his policy flaws, mostly because he is a person that bases his views on reason. When you deal with somebody like him, the political discourse is far more open and reasonable, and met with intellectual honesty.

    When looking at his main targets of government expenditure, Federal student loans aren’t exactly the same disasterous fiscal commitments as, say, Social Security or Medicare.

    I think Paul stresses that his views come from restraint and prudence, which I think would govern his decisions during any kind of rollback of the governmental powers.

  14. Craig Says:

    The Constitution brings people together. Ron Paul’s support for federalism and the 10th Amendment is what will keep liberal supporters on the bandwagon, because it already is keeping them on the bandwagon. Simply put, Ron Paul would leave the most divisive issues to the states, rather than forcing conservative social views on everyone.

    As for his “extreme” libertarian rhetoric, it’s simply good strategy (wishy-washy libertarians take note): Making bold statements gets him noticed and creates dedicated supporters. Staking out significant changes and big goals puts him in a position to compromise in the direction of greater liberty later on. By saying unequivocally what he wants, the big-government opposition realizes they will have to make substantial concessions in his direction to reach agreement on things.

    Contrast this with the “humble foreign policy”, “Social Security private accounts”, and “smaller government” rhetoric of George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign. By setting realistic and achievable goals, Bush accomplished nothing — Social Security reform fell through, spending shot up faster than under any president since LBJ, and we’re now trying to build 2 nations while eyeing a third.

  15. bharat Says:

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
    Yes he is. “Marriage is a religious question.. not federal”
    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    Why should anyone be. Do u want to be schooled by GWB?
    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
    Yes , eventually. But its not ruled out if the military budget is demolished.
    4. He’s Not For National Health Care
    Why should anyone be? States can have their socialized healthcare with all of the budget they get from increased state tax and small fed tax.
    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
    Not really. States like California can still choose.
    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
    Well. Thats not irrational. Give it a second thought.

  16. Michael Says:

    Not for federally supported public education…GREAT! Not for national health care…even better! Questions global warming…spectacular! Doesn’t like abortion…my only difference with him. Now I’m not so sure how you conclude that he is against separation of church and state.

    You see Ron Paul is a CONSERVATIVE and these views make him so. These stances (besides the abortion issue) are what attracts me to him–even more so than his foreign policy views. In fact, where I held most of Paul’s domestic views prior to discovering him, he has won me over regarding foreign policy.

    If you actually listen to Ron Paul articulate his conservative/libertarian views on domestic issues it is hard to argue with him. You see, the point is that having federal government out of education and health care will actually make education and health care better. Many believe that these two things are our rights as citizens, and therefore the federal government should be involved. Unfortunately central economic planning just doesn’t work and fed involvement just exacerbates the problems.

    Ron Paul has the solution.

  17. Steve Says:

    This blogger has taken the context out of the comments of the points he has made so let me clarify what the truth is.

    1: Is wrong: Ron Paul does believe in the seperation of church and state so where did that come from? Does this blogger remeber the 1st ammendment : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    2: yes he is correct on this however he wants the fed out of it and wants to return the power back to the states which makes perfect sense.

    3: He is not against college loans : He is against the federal goverment taking control of the college loans and therefore wants to return the power back to the states.

    4: WRONG : He is against socialized medicine again taking the power away from the federal goverment, Doesn’t any of you realize when the federal goverment takes control of these programs that 2/3 of the money for it is paid for the beurocrccy that runs it? Yes 2/3 of the money doesn’t go where it belongs and that is why federal programs DO NOT WORK.

    5: He is pro life : He delivered over 4 thousand babies i understand where he comes from however the federal goverment should not dictate to all states what to do and it should be decided on the local level. The federal goverment funds abortion clinics did you know this? Lobbied monies from doctors for federal funding , I personally think people should keep thier legs crossed or use protection and this wouldn’t really be an issue at all.

    6: Correct : I agree with him and if you would stop listening to people like al gore and the mainstream media and read for a change you would see that most of what they tell you is false. Why do you think the federal goverment should stay out of these things? Did you know congress is putting in place right now a tax for global warming? What a concept it’s ok to destroy the planet but we will tax you for it? What logic is that? It is called propaganda to find more ways to tax us all.

    This post is completely wrong in almost every case and i do not believe for 1 second this blogger was a Ron Paul supporter because most paul supporters know exaclty what he stands for and has the facts to back it up.

    Nice try though but it won’t work

  18. Paul Says:

    Justin, are you getting all Tucker on us? You’re posting the claims of a “reluctant supporter” who, generally, completely misinterprets Ron Paul’s positions. The tactic hopes to get people off of the bandwagon, because if a “supporter” is reluctant, imagine the populace!

    Most of Ron Paul’s supporters found him on the internet, not through 30-second soundbites. Do you really think we’re just anti-war sheep?

    And stop suggesting the third party thing. That would pretty much derail Ron Paul’s political career ala Buchanan.

  19. Eric Says:

    I’m a Ron Paul supporter and could debate any of those issues, it depends on your point of view. 1) As for seperation of Church & State, I believe people should be able to pray in class if they want to or not, it’s their right, aslong as they respect other’s who don’t have the same beliefs, where’s the problem? 2) Public education should be returned to the States, everytime big government gets implicated, it always turns out into highly costly and inneficient mess (FEMA with Katrina, anyone?). 3) With a better economy and lower taxes/inflation plus removing taxes for low paying jobs like waitresses helps ALOT in solving this problem. Dr. Paul and his kids didn’t take them and look how they turned out. How many of his kids are doctors? 4) America is 2.7 trillion in dept and has a failing dollar, it has to resort to borrowing insane amounts of money from places like China and Japan just to finance the war in Iraq and that’s not counting all the money being printed to try and keep up. People are already taxed to the max, so under these conditions, please explain to me how you can realistically have National Health without the governent resorting to printing the money to pay for it? Further decreasing the value of the dollar and increasing inflation. Right now, only Dr. Paul could pay for health care since he’s the only one willing to cut spending in the 1 trillion dollar a year foreign policy. 5) As for abortion, he only want’s to get the government out of the decision. Since it is too much of a sensitive issue to too many people, a monolistic answer isn’t realistic. The decision should be returned to the states via the people. The bigger the problem is, the more local the solution should be. 6) I haven’t heard his take on this so I don’t know. But I do like his policy of private property where you are not aloud to pollute your neighbor.

  20. MarkTwine Says:

    I just like to say that one thing Ron Paul always says is that anything he does is going to have to have the support of congress. With maybe the exception of Roe vs. Wade which he would turn over to the states to decide because the fed should have never been involved in the first place. Unlike the current regime that bends laws and operates on secrecy to acheive their elitist goals.
    So when President Paul is in office you can expect strict adherance to the constitution which is what we need. He gives us the freedom to decide for ourselves if we can handle it.
    I just advise, like so many of his supporters, to just read the constitution.

  21. charlie Says:

    Your right. I am one of those people who do not have a problem with the above mentioned “flaws.” For me the two biggest issues are the war and the debt.

    No more war means no more americans dying, a stronger military here at home to protect us, decrease in the escalation of tensions in the middle east (Iran), and the Iraq people could finally start putting their country together without an US occupation.

    No more debt means we could lower taxes, double our paychecks, increase our purchase power, generate a stronger economy, save the dollar, so that we could transition to a point where we could afford programs to help people.

    No other major candidate wants to stop the war or stop our US bankruptcy. When we go bankrupt how are we going to have school loans, etc?

  22. tammy Says:

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
    Yes he does, he just thinks that the federal gov’t ought to stay out of local matters
    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    Duh.
    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
    Duh.
    4. He’s Not For National Health Care
    Of course not, he also never accepted medicare as a doctor. It’s a terrible idea to have the federal gov’t in charge. Competition is key.
    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
    Yes, b/c he believes that it’s a state matter. His own personal belief is prolife but it’s up to the states.
    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
    Neither should you. Go try and stop the volcanoes from emitting carbon.

  23. tmcitizen64 Says:

    I guess I would put myself into the realm of FiscallyConservative/Socially Libertarian realm of voter that has in the past been supportive, i.e. voted for Liberal Democrats over Neocon Republicans. And, I do have to overlook some issues where I’m not in agreement with the outcomes that Dr. Paul would hope to see.

    And, yet, I’ve re-registered as a Republican to support with all my resources, creativity, time, and money Dr. Paul in the primary caucus and will vote for him in the general election even if I have to write in his name. Why?

    Because, he among all politicians that I’ve seen in my lifetime understands that without dedication to and support of the Constitution and the Rule of Law as the foundation for our government there will be no individual rights in this country. No Liberty. No dissent. It is the foundation of our freedoms, and without it, we are not free to discuss and debate all of the other issues.

    The current administration has shown how a simple plan or desire for a permanent political majority (call it the Rove Doctrine) can enable even one of the least inept presidents and administrations of all time to bring utter havoc on our system of government eroding the “checks & balances” that are the only tried and true mechanism in our Constitution that prevents one party rule, dictatorship and fascism to take root and permanently alter the balance of power in the relationship between the government and the governed.

    In otherwords, if these clowns can pass the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, get Americans to support torture, set up secret prisons, suspend Habeus Corpus, get the Congress to abdicate it’s authority to declare war to the president, allow signing statements, etc, etc, etc….what would a competent administration be able to do with these powers.

    Ron Paul Revolution – Legalize the Constitution.

  24. Tim Says:

    Yeah, I feel like I’m repeating myself.

    Paul wouldn’t have any chance of winning in this country as a third party candidate. The media would either ignore him completely as they ignore the whole Libertarian Party, or they would treat him the way they treated Ralph Nader–”the guy who siphons votes from the real candidates”.

    He’s also spoken at length about how hard it is for third parties even to get on the ballot in some states.

    If he’s playing to win, he has to sneak on as a Republican or Democrat. Its the only shot.

  25. Nick Coons Says:

    You’re right that most of us don’t have a problem with these.. I’ll explain them, as they seem to be some of the most misinterpreted of his views:

    “1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State”

    “Separation of Church and State” is such a broad term and almost everyone uses it differently. Some on the far left think this means children can’t pray in schools because schools are government-funded.

    However, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention “separation of church and state”. The only mention is in the First Amendment stating that Congress show write no law respecting religion. If someone in Congress decided they wanted to draft a bill because it matches their religious beliefs, I don’t have a problem with that, so long as the bill is duly authorized by the Constitution.

    “2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education”

    Wonderful!

    “3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans”

    No, that means no federally-funded collection loans. Banks used to give student loans before the government got involved, and in a free market, they will do so again.

    “4. He’s Not For National Health Care”

    Great!

    “5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned”

    He is personally against abortion, but would not attempt to legislate it out of existence at the federal level. This is a states issue. The fact that he is against abortion, but would still leave this to the states where it belongs and not get in the way, says a lot about his character.

    “6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing”

    This is like abortion. It doesn’t really matter what he believes, because the federal government has no authority to do anything about it in the “regulating” sense. However, he would take specific actions that would probably be beneficial, such as ceasing corporate welfare to oil companies.

    I think you’re right that liberals tend to care about these issues quite a bit, but I think that once they understand his positions (not just the one-liners that you’ve pointed out), they’ll realize that they are better positions.

    I’m a Libertarian, and my argument against, say, nationalized health care has been “you don’t have a right to my money”, which I believe is absolutely true, but not very convincing. Ron Paul agrees with that, but he also explains how leaving health care to the free market actually means that more people get cheaper and higher quality coverage. And isn’t that really the goal of the people promoting universal health care? His views work the same way on other issues (like education).

  26. Amir Says:

    Let me pick at these arguments a bit:
    (1) is a grossly flawed argument

    (2) Regarding Federal Funding for Education: According the the DOE, 91% of K-12 funds come from the state already. Are you suggesting that eliminating the other 9% from the federal budget would not be met with an equal if not greater replacement from state governments?
    http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln

    (3) According to the college board website, 75% of students received aid and federal loans account for 40% of all student aid (about $39B). Again, is there any reason a acompetitive (instead of government monopolized) loan program can’t make up the difference in the long-term?

    http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/189547.html

    (4) this is a sticky issue to liberals and a non-issue to conservatives. socialized health care is a stepping stone to socialism you know…

    (5) I also disagree with RP on abortion. Overturning RvW will allow state-by-state determination of abortion criminality which is an acceptable compromise with pro-lifers. I don’t have the proper equipment to require an abortion, but I see the societal benefits weighed against the moral quandary.

    (6) That the evidence isn’t convincing doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about the environment. Global warming is fear politics that panders to a particularly unpragmatic section of human thought. the federal government can’t do very much about the environment unless local citizens take up the cause and drastically change the environmental impact of their/their-companies behaviors.

  27. Nathan Says:

    The interesting thing about this post is that it criticizes Paul for the writer’s own illogical stand on the issues mentioned. Yes, Paul is extreme. The reason he’s extreme is because he’s followed his beliefs about federalism, limited government, the Constitution, and free markets, through to their logical conclusions. It is not Paul who is being illogical. It is the very writer of this piece that finds logic standing in his way…

  28. Laura Pivonka Says:

    Justin, either you are pessimistic by nature, or you are inherently against Ron Paul and attempting to derail his supporters. My husband and I have read all his issues, heard him speak, and he is NOT a radical. He IS a revolutionary. His ideas are resonating in the public, and he is a threat to the other Republican Candidates, and the so-called Republican Media.

    First of all, he cannot make his ideological changes overnight. He is only the President. As far as his war philosophy goes, he will go to war, but ONLY if the Congress declares it. What’s wrong with that? We Americans can easily live with that. The public would support him.

    The bottom line is that Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. He is the ONLY ONE! In fact, she must be reveling in the fact that Ron Paul’s fellow Republican Media is attacking him, like Sean Hannity, etc. She must be reveling in the fact that the FoxNews polls are yanked off the Internet and that these self-aggrandizing Republican elite fix the audiences during their debates!

    Ron Paul needs just 100,000 supporters who are willing to contribute $350 each. That will send a message to the Republican party, and he will then have amassed an EQUAL amount as compared to Hillary Clinton. Listen, Hillary cannot win this race against Ron Paul. She KNOWS she can beat the other candidates. Sean Hannity and his fellow “friends” are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Rudy and the rest, for they will surely fail against her. I know it, you know it, and they will come to know it.

    Their fears of Ron Pauls’ ideological beliefs are unfounded. His message is clear. He would not be a tyrannical ruler. He “would” do what he could within the rule of law to change the direction of America, and that’s all we Americans can ask for at this point in time. Heck, we don’t even know if it’s too late at this point.

    I’ll just take one of his issues the media is trying to manipulate in order to make him appear ‘radical’. That is of Social Security. Listen, he would not abolish, nor could he technically. But, he could recommend that younger people have the option of moving their monies into the stock market as a choice. He would solidify the SS budget by not allowing the political raping and pillaging of it by the politicians to support other programs. That would insure our elderly would get their benefits.

    And, NOONE is going to care if the Federal Reserve is removed or not. Many financial commentators see no value in it anyway and WANT the markets to move in due course. The Federal Reserve prints money, and I’ve said long before Ron Paul that this is not good for our dollar, yet nobody seemed to be worried about it.

    He is the only candidate who seems to have a handle on all the issues. He’s a reasonable and very intelligent man. Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton, and she can be defeated. BUT, we MUST unite and get the money to catapult Ron Paul into a seriously taken candidate, one which the media will not be able to deny.

  29. The What Says:

    Guess what? You can attach anyone else’s name (yours and mine included) to that headline and it would make more sense than Dr. Paul’s. In that instance, would you still go out and vote?

  30. Michael Says:

    “1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State”

    Stopped reading your post right there…

    It would be silly for someone to claim to be a ‘Constitutionalist’, yet disregard the first amendment…

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”…

    Bye.

  31. kipload Says:

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

    Actually, Paul is more “Separation of Church and State” than any candidate. He believes in a rounded interpretation that restricts government in religious matters, and restricts the role of “organized” religion in government.

    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans

    Instead of handing out Federal financing for strictly public education, he wants to abolish the Dept. of Ed and use the money saved to provide a tax break to parents. Thus, putting the money back into the parents hands. This will enable the parents to decide how their child is to be educated.

    4. He’s Not For National Health Care.

    As a doctor he knows the negative effects of government managed/centrally planned medical care. He believes, and has the background and proof, that government intervention is what has caused the rising costs. Only in medicine and other programs in which the government interferes do prices go up with advanced technologies.

    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

    Personally, he is against abortion. However, this is not the only reason he would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. He believes, and is correct, that this matter belong to the states. Therefore, if California decides to be pro-choice a Paul administration would not stand in their way.

    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

    I would say this is the one issues that can hurt him the most. However, it is the typical Republican/Conservative position. Paul does make some interesting arguments as to how this can be solved with free markets and property rights.

    -kipload
    http://idealogs.blogspot.com

  32. No Comment Says:

    Gosh, you’re forgetting something SO CRUCIAL.

    ALl these radical ideas of his MUST be passed by the Congress. Would you all relax, take a chill pill and see the bigger picture please. Vote for the guy, he deserves to be our next President, and trust the Congress to keep him in line.

  33. E Philipp Says:

    These “serious flaws” are very much misrepresenting Ron Paul’s platform. 1–doesn’t believe in separation of church and state—what????? That is why he doesn’t support a marriage amendment–marriage is an eccesiastical (church-related) event not a government-sponsored deal. If we weren’t taxed on income (married, filing jointly or separately vs single , would the government care?)
    2–Federally supported education–yep, he’s not for it—That ought to be the State’s responsibility, with local money not the Federal taxpayers.
    3– Hence, no FEDERAL college loans. There would still be private scholarships and State loans would be possible as well. (With no income tax and social security, maybe we could actually afford school–just a thought)
    4– Yes, indeed, he’s not for National Health care because it doesn’t work–it costs mega-bucks and doesn’t deliver. Google “British pull own teeth” for an example of a broken system. Medical costs, like technology costs ought to go down with progress–that doesn’t happen when the government runs it. Also Nationalizing it means one size fits all–throw out any ‘alternative treatments’
    5–Yes, he is indeed, personally against abortion and believes Roe v Wade ought to be overturned, BUT he believes that this should also be States jurisdiction– this could lead to different policies in different States—think California vs Alabama vs Mass or New York vs Iowa.
    6–Global warming is a subject of much debate and current policies aren’t doing much besides spend money and talk. A free market would have incentives to develop REAL solutions—unlike federally subsidized ‘pet projects’ like ethanol. This is true whether global warming is man-made or a natural cycle. He believes that the market will address this far better than government mandates—we’ll get REAL SOLUTIONS not token nods.
    These issues should not be stumbling blocks to informed supporters of Ron Paul. Especially as he does not seek to Rule on High with increasingly more executive branch power. In the style of government originally conceived by the founders, the checks and balances were real and they protected the people from overly zealous ambitious leaders. Since Ron Paul very adamantly supports the constitutions, his personal views aren’t threatening to individuals. (the main stream media is a different story)

  34. Steve Says:

    Justin,

    Writing anything remotely like this is complete “trash.” Ron Paul has a great platform and he has admitted, he would do anything drastic! So please stop with these hit job articles. We can tell what you are trying to achieve. Try writing seriously about his platform by doing a little research. Maybe you should go to his website.

  35. Steve Says:

    Justin,

    Writing anything remotely like this is complete “trash.” Ron Paul has a great platform and he has admitted, he wouldn’t do anything drastic! So please stop with these hit job articles. We can tell what you are trying to achieve. Try writing seriously about his platform by doing a little research. Maybe you should go to his website.

  36. Ginger Partington Says:

    The issue of separation of church and state seems the most important among liberal voters, and I see most attacks from the opposition coming from this angle. It has been asserted that Ron Paul appeals to disappointed Bush voters seeking a Reagan clone. I’m not sure being like Reagan is a bad thing?

    This is legislation Ron Paul sponsored which supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.

    Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
    H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:
    Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
    H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
    To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
    Proposed Legislation:
    H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)
    H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)
    S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)
    H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)
    H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)
    H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et.al.)

    As you can see, all of this is in perfect accord with the 1963 ruling in Abington School District v. Schempp and the later Lemon v. Kurtzman which established a three part criteria: sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the government in religious activity. Failure in any one of those realms allow the measure to be declared unconstitutional.

    So, once again Dr, Congressman Ron Paul follows the Constitution to the letter and ensures that all Americans’ civil liberties are protected.

  37. Bob Says:

    Justin Gardner is Seriously Flawed As A Journalist.

  38. Mark Says:

    This must be a very liberal supporter. I’m a republican and I like all of Ron Paul’s conservative ideas. My support for Dr. Paul is not just about his position on foreign policy, but to break the stronghold on the neocon movement of both parties. Once we are on solid ground with our government we can debate social issues. We’re lawless nation at the moment which does not follow any part of its constitution, everything is out the window, and some people see this as an opportunity to take more power and profit. Not to mention we’re so in debt that we are going to go bankrupt at current rate of spending and promises. We really do need Ron Paul’s conservative views to get us out of this mess.

    I think people would have a much different perspective on the US if we were truly free a society in a free capitalistic market (without government involvement). Thinking in terms of what is now and somehow changing Ron Paul’s policies, the same ones he has been advocating for the last 30 years, is counter productive. We have a solid conservative platform, we have 30 years worth of Ron Paul’s position papers (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles) which have been well thought out and we should stick to it.

    Focus people, focus!

    http://thisnovember5th.com

  39. maest Says:

    If Paul has any flaws as a candidate, they aren’t ideological.

  40. Leland Thomas Faegre Says:

    There is nothing the matter with Ron Paul as a candidate. Americans are seriously flawed as an electorate…

    “Free education for all children in public schools.”

    —Plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto

  41. Tom Walsh Says:

    I support Ron Paul with eyes wide open. The things you fear are exactly the reasons why I am proud to support him and why I believe he will win!

    The Constitution merely says that “Congress shall write no law about the ESTABLISHMENT of religion.” It says nothing about separation.
    I want parents making educational decisions not bureaucrats.
    College is expensive because of government aid from my taxes.
    Health Care is prohibitive because of the regulation of the market.
    I want Roe overturned, because the unborn have the right to life.
    And there is no Global Warming. Its all a big con job to raise taxes.

  42. Jon Says:

    I’m a huge RP supporter, and I admit that I don’t agree with 100% of his positions, but I’m up there at a strong 90%. That’s the most I’ve ever agreed with any candidate current or past. When it comes to the current alternatives, Giuliani, Clinton, Romney and Obama, I agree with less than 50% of their positions.

  43. Grant Says:

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
    As an atheist, this is the only one of Dr. Paul’s views that I don’t agree with. He is of the opinion that church and state can mix as long as the government doesn’t sanction any one religion over another. However, at the same time he believes that religious institutions like marriage should not be the concern of the state at all. It is Dr. Paul’s stance on these types of issues that cause me to support him despite our vast religious differences.

    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    Why should he be? Federal funding accounts for less than 10% of the money that goes to public schools. The rest is supplied by the state. Yet, the federal government is able to enforce curriculum and policies like “No Child Left Behind” which has done more to damage our educational system than anything in recent memory. School curriculum, control, and accountability should be left to the states and local communities. Let parents decide what is right for their children, not the people on Capitol Hill.

    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
    That doesn’t mean no college loans. It means no FEDERAL college loans. Big difference.

    4. He’s Not For National Health Care
    We already have national health care. It’s called Medicare. I’ve yet to meet someone who is satisfied with the job that Medicare is doing. We need to revamp the system and get away from socialized medicine. Give people a choice in how they are treated and how it is paid for.

    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
    I’m pro-choice and also would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. The federal government has no authority to tell citizens whether or not abortion is legal. Now, if someone can manage to pass a constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception (meaning that you would have your right to life and liberty then, rather than at birth), then abortion would become illegal. Frankly, that is not going to happen. There is not enough support for such a measure. But just because Roe v. Wade happens to support my view doesn’t make it right. The federal government has no say in this issue.

    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
    He’s not alone. Many scientists maintain the view that the Earth goes through periodic cycles of hot and cold, and that our current “hot” cycle is only casually linked to human factors. Now, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to conserve, pollute less, etc. But it does mean that rather than approaching this from a perspective of global warming, we should be approaching this from a perspective of pollution. Nobody has the right to pollute my air and water. Whether or not that pollution is causing global warming is beside the point.

  44. E Philipp Says:

    I just came across an excellent example of failed Federal environmental policies. “California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should make good on his threat to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to grant his state the waiver it needs to set tough new limits on auto emissions of greenhouse gases.” This would NOT happen under a Paul presidency. The States would be able to make their own policies. Federal agencies are not the best approach for these issues. Dr. Paul has used the City of Pittsburgh, which was once described as “hell with the lid off” as a good example. Pittsburgh cleaned itself up air–water, the works before there were any Clean Air acts or other Federal plans. We’ve just become accustomed to being told what to do by a nanny-state. We can make our own good choices–and do a better job too!

  45. J.P. Says:

    Why are you burning down a perfectly good house?

    Ron Paul supports education at the state level–he wants the the same tasks taken care of at the state and local level that is now handled at the national level. So you would get education assisstance–it would just be handled by the states.

    He supports free market health care. Again, any govt. involvement would come from states.

    He is personally opposed to abortion. However, he just wants to keep the courts from ruling on it and leave it to the people, state by state.

  46. steve Says:

    Nice try are you angry he won the GOP Debate the other night? hehe

    Why Don”t You Know Ron Paul??????

    The corporate media will not give Ron Paul any Exposure. Because, NBC is owned by GE. GE is one of the world”s largest war-makers. They make things that go boom. They make $Billions on war. A Ron Paul administration would be bad for business. CNN is owned by AOL. Majority share holder is Saudi Royal Talal who is also partners with GHWBush in The Carlyle Group. Another major warmaker. And on and on. You get the picture. This is why they are doing a Media Blackout on him. Because they don”t WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!

    Who is Ron Paul?
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about

    Ron Paul Has WON 10 Straw-Polls!

    Who Owns The Media: http://www.mediaowners.com

    RESTORE YOUR LIBERTY & FREEDOM
    SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT RON PAUL 2008!

    Ron Paul Will:

    ** Stop Iraq War Immediately
    ** Eliminate IRS
    ** Eliminate Federal Reserve
    ** Eliminate Government Wasteful Spending
    ** Restore America”s Work Force & Values
    ** Restore America”s Freedom!

    GET UP AND GET ACTIVE TODAY!!!
    Ron Paul Is America”s Last Hope!

    Join The ReVoLuTiOn In Your City Stand Up America:
    http://ronpaul.meetup.com/cities/

    We have Domestic Terrorists It Is Called The Bush Administration And All Of His “Secretive Signed Statements” Either Stand Up Now or Go To Sams Club And Keep Buying Cases of Vasiline So When You Put Hillary In Office! WAKE UP AMERICA!

  47. Max Says:

    He doesn’t believe in Church and State? Please find a resource to back this claim up. He is a constitutionalist. Everything in this list, with exception of global warming (which is still speculative at best) are state issues. Enough said.

    People who are going to rip on Paul’s opinions should first learn where his opinions come from.

    There is a proper way for government to function and it begins and ends with the Constitution.

  48. Matt C Says:

    I agree that Ron Paul is imperfect. Now could you give us the name of a candidate who is more deserving of support, please?

  49. The Preacher Says:

    The next time you have a thought like this…..
    …just let it go.

    Of all the things to write about, why this? You are kidding me right?

    I do not feel when you add up all the odd Ron Paul ” odd stuff” it amounts to anything when compared to “the load” the others in the presidential race carry.

    Ron Paul is constantly addressed by two or more negatives like, long shot, dark horse, Libertarian, No Chance Of Winning, 1% in the polls, etc., frankly he has received the most negative biased treatment I have ever seen. Could people get by with this type of slander against Obama or Keys?

    If Rudy (you know he ran NY during 9-11, if you did not, wait 5 seconds he will tell you) had to carry the truth 1/10 of the amount of time Dr. Ron Paul did Rudy would be out of the race.

    While some in government hunt, fish, or collect stamps, Rudy sells American soil for the NAFTA superhighway to foreign countries through his law firm while running for president. I believe many Americans would classify this opportunistic behavior as treasonous, and unpatriotic. Where is the press machine pushing this agenda? Where are you ? America’s attention does not seem to make it there because political hacks like kids waiting to see Santa are poking at Dr. Ron Paul.

    By this logic; if Ron Paul was a scum bag, cross dresser, selling America down the tubes all would be good with the world, and the Neocons would live happily ever after?

    Do me a favor and get your morality radar on the real enemy. Hillary, Rudy, Fred, Mitt, all have more baggage than Dr. Ron Paul. These slime balls are the best politicians special interest group money can buy. We are talking about turning the government back over to “We the People” not the highest bidders. When it comes to viewpoints, Hillary, Rudy, Fred, Mitt has had more positions than Anna Nichole. Out of all this HORROR you were inspired to pick on the short comings of Dr. Ron Paul? Get with the program, son.

  50. Mark Wagner Says:

    The problem I have with this blog post is not that you don’t like Ron Paul, or are that you are questioning his policies, it’s that you obviously haven’t done your research. You give 5 items (well, 4) that don’t go into any detail and implies that those are the “end all” of his views.

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

    This claim has no merit. Yes, Ron Paul believes that people should be able to pray in schools. He isn’t saying that he believes that only Christians can, but that EVERYONE can, regardless of your religion.

    Ron Paul follows the Constitution and it states..

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    His record has never strayed from that. If you are going to make this claim, provide some evidence.

    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

    And? Are you living in some bubble where the federal government is actually doing a good job telling state and local governments how to teach children? No Child Left Behind? You support that? Have you ever spoken to a teacher?

    Education should be left up to the state and local governments. When you get the federal government involved, you don’t get results. Katrina and New Orleans is another example of how the federal government failed at providing help.

    Talk to teachers and parents, research how bad it gets when the federal government gets involved in education. America education system isn’t the laughing stock of the modern world because of a fluke. There are reasons, and one is the involvement of the federals government.

    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans

    No loans from the government. You’ll be able to get loans from countless other institutions. You’ll be ok.

    4. He’s Not For National Health Care

    Again, are you for a socialist system? You want the government telling you where you can get medical treatment, what treatment you can get, and how much of it you can get? Keep the government out of heathcare.

    Take a few minutes and do some research to read up on Ron Paul’s views of the healthcare system. He he is doctor who has dealt with insurance for many years. He knows there is a problem and has some very good solutions for it without having to get the federal government involved.

    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

    Sigh.. I’m so sick of this. Yes, he wants this overturned and at a personal level he doesn’t think abortion should be legal. But this is a state and local matter. To have 1 ruling that prevails over every single state, county, town, city, etc is stupid.

    He wants to let the states decide. As he has said (paraphrase) “The more serious the issue, the more local the solution should be.”

    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

    It isn’t that he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming, he doesn’t believe that it is 100% to blame. He has stated many times that we need to address issues of the environment, with private properties rights, etc.

    Please take some time out of your day and research before posting an article like this. Simply copy/pasting from some other anti-Ron Paul blog (I’ve seen that exact list, exactly formatted like that on many sites) is pretty weak and shows that either you just don’t like Ron Paul because someone you know doesn’t, or that you simply trying to spread anti-Ron Paul propaganda.

    He’s far from perfect, he has his flaws, I don’t agree 100% on everything with him but he is a good man who cares for this country. Research Ron Paul.

  51. jmklein Says:

    1) The Constitution says nothing of a separation between church and state. Open it up and actually read the first amendment (all it bans is establishment and infringement of free exercise).

    2-3) College costs are soaring because of student aid. Think about it. College is always going to cost barely what a student can afford, when the government gives aid they just raise prices until they soak up the subsidy, and charge what the student cant barely afford.

    4) The rest of the world with socialized health care is moving towards market system, why we, the only country that got it right first would go backwards boggles me. I guess if you want your health care to be like the post office or a communal farm go ahead.

    5) Abortion is a severe infringement on the liberty of the human life form in the uterus. Notice I did not call the human life form a “person”, but it is human, and it is alive. In my humble opinion, all humans have a right to life that is the foundation of any liberty.

    6) Wolf!!!! Wolf!!!! Wolf!!!!!!

  52. The Preacher Says:

    Of all the things to write about, why this? You are kidding me right?

    I do not feel when you add up all the odd Ron Paul “stuff” it amounts to anything when compared to the load the others in the presidential race carry.

    Ron Paul constantly addressed by two or more negatives like, long shot, dark horse, Libertarian, No Chance Of Winning, 1% in the polls, etc., frankly he has received the most negative biased treatment I have ever seen. Could people get by with this type of slander against Obama or Keys?

    If Rudy (you know he ran NY during 9-11, if you did not, wait 5 seconds he will tell you) had to carry the truth 1/10 of the amount of time Dr. Ron Paul did Rudy would be out of the race.

    While some in government hunt, fish collect stamps, Rudy sells American soil for the NAFTA superhighway to foreign countries through his law firm while running for president. I believe many Americans would classify this opportunistic behavior as treasonous, and unpatriotic. America’s attention does not seem to make it there because hacks like kids waiting to see Santa are poking at Ron Paul.

    By this logic; if Ron Paul was a scum bag, cross dresser, selling America down the tubes all would be good with the world, and the Neocons would live happily ever after?

    Do me a favor and get your morality radar on the real enemy. Hillary, Rudy, Fred, Mitt, all have more baggage than Dr. Ron Paul. These slime balls are the best politicians special interest group money can buy. We are talking about turning the government back over to “We the People” not the highest bidders. When it comes to viewpoints, Hillary, Rudy, Fred, Mitt has had more positions than Anna Nichole. Out of all this HORROR you were inspired to pick on the short comings of Dr. Ron Paul? Get with the program son.

  53. shew Says:

    I have my own reason for supporting Ron Paul. I agree with some of his major points and I generally lean towards a libertarian philosophy. However, ultimately my support is because I protest the status quo. I see very little difference between the establishment Republicans and Democrats. Both support really big government at the expense of individual liberties. The “nanny” state and an “empire” are not consistent with my vision for America, thus I am disgusted with the current leadership of both the Democrats and Republicans. Ron Paul as president would never have the power to implement a libertarian agenda on America. However, he would have the power to nudge America in a healthier direction.

  54. james Says:

    What is this crap? A vast majority of Ron Paul supporters know what his record is, and that is why he has such die-hard followers! Does anyone agree with all of a certain candidates viewpoints? Perhaps; I imagine Justin thinks Guiliani would make the perfect president. Why would anyone propose that Ron Paul should run libertarian rather than republican? Do you have to support the war and big government to be a republican? Do you have to support the loss of our civil liberties and God-given rights for protection from the terrorists? I hope Justin knows what the fix for global warming is: a tax on all things emitting “greenhouse gasses,” on top of the tax we already pay for our fuel. The heat is really starting to get turned up on Ron Paul. The hit pieces are being placed everywhere, now even from his own “supporters.” It does not matter much though, because Ron Paul is the only hope for this country to get back to the land of the free and home of the brave, and that message speaks louder than the hit pieces, the war, and our so-called “national security.” If you truly believe that RP will not be better for this country than any other candidate, then you better be worried, because the people who were given the control of this country by the CONSTITUTION know better, and it is time to put a true leader in the oval office.

  55. Nick Says:

    Ron Paul believes in and is limited by the Constitution. None of the so-called “flaws” you listed are relevant.

    I will admit though that it is hard to talk to the brainwashed liberals about voting for Ron Paul when they are voting 99% for environmental issues. Either say “He wants to leave it up to the states,” “He hasn’t come out against the EPA in his campaign,” or move on to trying to convince Republicans who dont believe in man made global warming anyway.

    If your primary reason for voting is national sovereignty, national security, anti-war, anti-illegal immigration, civil rights, civil liberties, personal integrity, end to no-bid contracts, low taxes, economic issues, a sane drug policy, rule of law, or all of the above, Ron Paul is undoubtedly your candidate. Socialists and brainwashed Republican “useful idiots” of the globalist corporate machine need not apply.

  56. Jason Says:

    He is for separation of church and state the way the founders wanted it. I am not a practicing Christian, but don’t fool yourselves into believing that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs. We can practice whatever we want without fear of persecution. He is for prayer in school. VOLUNTARY prayer. I feel this country has gotten out of whack with the litigiousness of persons who are ‘offended’ by someone elses belief, or the way the country was founded. Hello – One Nation, under God, dumbasses. If someone doesn’t like the Pledge of Allegiance – they should probably go get home schooled.

    He is for the states controlling education, not the federal government. Something wrong with this?

    My girlfriend is from Whales and, believe me, she does NOT want to go back to government health care.

    Paul wants Roe vs Wade overturned because he feels it is too sensitive an issue to have a blanket law for the entire country. What is good for one state may not be good for another. For the same reason he thinks the government should stay the hell away from arresting people in California for using medical mary jane. Abortion is one of those things that nobody will EVERY agree. Therefore, it should be left to the state to decide whether or not it is legal, not a few people in a supreme court thousands of miles away. If there is a vote in FL, and it is voted legal to abort at up to 6 months that means the people of that state have spoken! Maybe you should listen to a few of the things he says about abortion, since he was an OB/GYN doctor.

    I also heard him in an interview saying that global warming is a problem, but it is not a problem that should be subsidized by the government.

  57. mark Says:

    1. What Tom said “The Constitution merely says that “Congress shall write no law about the ESTABLISHMENT of religion.” It says nothing about separation.”
    2. I personally want to see people be able to choose which school they send their kids to (or keep them home). The system we have now is crap and every survey for the last couple decades says that.
    3. I’m sure when all is said and done everyone will still be able to get collage loans just as easily.
    4. Good! national health care is a horrible idea with semi-good intentions.
    5. Good! RvW as far as privacy in concerned is understandable, and I don’t want rights taken from anyone, although to me that includes the rights of the unborn.
    6. when you have things like this (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=67623834-a1af-42e4-91cb-28492a462651)
    being written about the misunderstanding about key aspects of the entire topic by someone you’d expect to be all over the global warming bandwagon you have to at least step back and think about it a little.

    My wife is a VERY liberal social worker, her only complaint is #5 but admits it’s at least tolerable to her since she 100% opposes 3rd term abortions, which honestly is likely the way most states will go.

  58. Christopher Says:

    1. He does not think that the church should be involved in government affairs in any way. Where’d you get the idea that he does?

    2+3. How has this helped our education system? We still decide who goes to college based on grades and extra-curricular merits from high-school. States, in large part, fund people going to their state colleges and universities. What the wide availability of these federal funds has done is make tuition skyrocket in the last few years… ever read the newspaper? They have an article on it nearly every week. So tuition goes up, the same number of kids go to the same schools, but the difference is the schools make a ton of cash and the kids rack up a ton of debt. It is a total waste of money. I wish I wasn’t able to get funds… I’m still 14k in the hole 3 years later!

    4. Any time the government has stepped in and tried to coordinate a large social program, be it retirement, medicine, or disability services they’ve failed miserably. There’s a three year wait to get on disability and even then you only get your case heard… you still might not get any money. Then you have to pay lawyers to settle it all out. Is it any wonder that lawyers are huge funders of Giuliani and Hillary? Ron Paul is right about health-care. You should go listen to some interviews where he’s had time to sit down and explain his goals, not the 30 seconds he gets in the debates. Take social security – in 1935 their plan was to take only 3% of the first $3,000 of your income and they said that it would pay all the necessary benefits. Today that would be 3% of $50k due to inflation. But we actually pay 15.3% of the first $90,700 just to make it work. And we even tax the first 85% of the benefits that are paid out! That is definitely a system that has failed to deliver on its promises. We can expect more of the same from national health care since the same people are still running the government.

    5. Some people see abortion as a religious stance, I don’t. We provide protection to bald eagle eggs and sea turtle eggs based on the fact that we understand that they will grow into an eagle or a turtle. We do not provide the same protection for a growing human embryo and that is baffling to me. Roe vs Wade decided that a fetus is not a “person” and thus is not “human” and so has no rights. Doesn’t anyone find this odd? You could make an excuse for rape victims or cases where the mother may actually die should the baby cause complications, but with the kill count at 29 million in 30 years, I doubt the majority of those are from either rape or other serious health problems. We have only lost about 1.5 million people since 1776 due to all wars and conflicts combined! Yet we’ve terminated about 20 times that many pregnancies in just 30 years. And the democrats and Giuliani want this to be funded by the government! That is a shame.

    6. What evidence? Has the sea risen? If earth was seriously off balance temperature-wise, wouldn’t the sea have risen at least a foot or two? Dr. Paul is probably right that whatever evidence we could find that humans have had a huge effect on the overall global climate is within the margin of error for all events caused by nature – volcanoes and the like. Locally, in places like Los Angeles, NYC, Hong Kong and others you could make a case that the local climate is indeed very much affected, but globally it is probably minimal. Also, we could change America’s habits but we cannot enforce these things on any other nation, like China, so what’s the point? If you want to make a change do it yourself by buying more responsible vehicles, such as hybrids or small cars, instead of pickups and suvs! Don’t use your home heating and A/C so much. These are things that America as a group of concerned people should promote but not necessarily the realm of federal government. California is a great example of a state taking the bull by the horns and going their own way.

    Peace

  59. William Says:

    We need to communicate:

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
    – 1st Amendment issue
    1a.
    Mandatory federal separation makes voluntary participation impossible.
    1b. Mandatory participation is against the constitution.

    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    – Parenting, 10th Amendment Issue
    2a.
    More parents than not can best decide how to educate their children.

    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
    – Tax Issue
    3a.
    Federal Student Loans are a vicious tax on higher education. Many parents and many others would have been able to save/invest money for the education of their children if not for the near 35% Federal Income Tax. Effectively, the federal government charges children interest on their parents’ income. Students wouldn’t need loans without the excessive Federal Income Tax.

    4. He’s Not For National Health Care
    - 10th Amendment Issue
    4a.
    National Health care would lower the quality of medical care for all americans. Can you imagine veterans’ health benefits for all Americans? Would the government have the selective ability to limit who it treats? Do you think that those in government are not racist? Also, look at how safe and inexpensive common procedures such as laser eye surgery have become because of competition in the market. Imagine if the government subsidized medicine as it d

    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
    – 10th Amendment Issue
    5a.
    Abortion would be returned to the states, and we’d probably end up right where we are today with abortion safe and legal in every state because the black market for abortions would return. The federal government should never have legislative authority over the unborn. Example: China’s government has this authority and prescribes mandatory abortion for population control.

    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
    6a.
    Doesn’t believe it’s convincing enough to concentrate on the temperature going up instead of concentrating on keeping us from blowing each other up. Seriously, will we be very good at regulating the weather?

  60. john Says:

    Justin,
    And the other candidates? What about them? Are they flawless? Ron Paul is for real change. Not for incremental change. This country has been headed down the wrong path for the last 3 administrations. Are the changes the other candidates proposing going to change this? Are you ready to trust some other candidates word over his? Your problem, as well as most other people against Ron Paul, is that you seem to think that he is going to flip over this country on day one of his presidency. There is a congress, and any law he proposes has to go through them. What it comes down to is who do you trust? Obviously, you don’t trust Ron Paul…which is a shame, because common sense dictates that he is the most trustworthy candidate out there. As for Red State…Ron Paul supporters are making a mistake by posting there. We should ignore them. The site is getting too much attention…and they are eating it up.

  61. max Says:

    Nice try – but You cannot divide us because we stand UNITED!
    Know this – it will seriuosly hurt your karma.

  62. Mike Says:

    I support Ron all the way. Any points I have disagreed with, after researching Ron’s reasons, I have come to see the light. It is not as much that Ron is against some of the things you mentioned, he states it is not the Government job to tell us what is right for us. It is a local and state government plus personal judgment call.
    Get active or be radioactive…..Go Ron Paul

  63. Dale H Says:

    I don’t agree with all his positions, but I have to acknowledge all his positions are consistent WITH EACH OTHER. They would rip him to shreds if he took inconsistent positions. If he took positions like every other candidate with the exception of the Iraq “police action”, heck, you may as well vote for another candidate. I like Paul, and while sometimes he comes off a bit whiney in debates, in regular speeches he’s very warm, rationale, and articulate.

  64. bill sanders Says:

    People are rational and well aware of Paul’s philosophy. Starting off your piece by quoting someone anonymous internet poster who claims to be a Ron Paul supporter does not get you off to a good start. This is a democracy , and no one is going to agree with ANY candidate 100%. It’s like that for anyone, you just have to weigh the options and that’s what Ron Paul supporters do. Being out of Iraq and saving trillions of dollars and thousands of lives is the most important issue to people. Ron Paul is the only candidate with the courage to stand up for this. Let me address some of your other points:
    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
    * Absolutely false. This was evidence in Sunday’s Fox debate. The first question he answered he said that the state should not pass a gay marriage ammendment because it is a RELIGOUS matter. He thinks the government should play no part in supporting religions.
    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    * Absolutely TRUE. Would you be surprised if I said most TEACHERS would support the elimination of the Department of Education too? They are tired of the meaningless standards and bureaucratic red tape. Paul is against it for the simple yet salient fact that it’s not authorized by the constitution. Education is the domain of the states.
    2. b. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
    * Not true, it means no more phoney “No child left behind” acts. Universities, States, and Private Banks will still provide loans, and Paul has not even mentioned this program yet, but has said he wanted to seek a consensus with congress on the department of education.
    3. He’s Not For National Health Care
    * True. Do you know who’s lobbying for national health care the most? The drug companies and hospital corporations. They know that with a payer like the government they can charge as much as they want and the government will always pay its bills. This is why the medical industry is the only industry in which TECHNOLOGICAL advances have INCREASED costs. Besides the massive waste and innefficiencies this system would create, it’s unconstitutional, would require a massive tax hike, and would lead to poorer health care like they have in canada.
    4. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
    * FALSE, HE IS NOT AGAINST THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO CHOOSE. Personally, as an OBGYN who’s delivered 4000 babies, he’s sickened by abortion. However, as the constitution and Federalism dicatates he asserts that the federal government has no right to regulate it and wants to let the states decide. What would this lead to? Well the more liberal states would allow it, and the more conservative states would ban it except in extreme cases. This would cause all the hatred and animosity caused by Roe V. Wade to dissappear and the split in our country would be healed. Plus every state would get what they wants. This is the only sensible and constituional solution, and would not prevent a woman from legally getting an abortion in this country.
    5. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
    * I’ll have to reserach that, but Paul I doubt this. You’ve simplified or misconstrued his views on other things so I’m not going to give you benefit of the doubt, but let me say this. He wants the free market to provide America’s energy. Because of current regulations the construction of nuclear power plants has been squashed. You know what this resulted in. Tons of coal burning, ozone depleting plants, the most harmful and dangerous type of smoke for the enviorment and our health is coal. Nuclear energy is clean and produces NO POLLUTION, it is much CHEAPER , and efficient. Ron Paul will open up the energy market to this cleaner fuel choice.

  65. Gerald Gibson Says:

    #1) Global Warming is NOT a con job. Ron Paul simply said he didnt see any evidence to convince him over the urgency… that means he needs more facts… it does NOT mean he is a kook like some republicans and think that god would never let Global Warming happen… give the man more evidence and his reasoned mind just might change… thats what makes the promise of a Ron Paul presidency so …well… promising…

    #2) As long as people are not allowed to force their religion on each other who cares about how you define the seperation of church and state… why doesnt someone bring up Thomas Jeffersons explaination about the “Seperation of Church and State” which is exactly what Jefferson called it and see what Ron Paul has to say… you cannot simply say he thinks it has no meaning… I have read his qoutes on this matter… he simply doesnt see a need to force christians to keep to themselves. I really wish christians would keep to themselves but I sure done support laws to force them to. THAT would be against seperation of church and state.

    #3) What good does federally funding schools do? Why not just not let the feds have that money and we can have state and local funded schools? I would rather see private sector efforts like those by Bill Gates to make newer modern schools and teaching systems replace the federal mandated system.

    #4) Ron Paul is not for federal government ran national health care… if WE THE PEOPLE come up with our own way to have single payer without the federal government getting involved what is wrong with that? Why not a single payer system based on the Red Cross? Or some other NGO?

    #5) Ron Paul is correct about the abortion issue.. it is NOT slavery… let the states battle it out… science is making this more and more of a moot point anyway.

  66. Chris Says:

    What a bunch of scared pu$$ies. You sound like a couple of women. Our Founding Fathers would shoot you 2 first. Gird your loins, this struggle is going to be painful. Sacrifices have to be made. 9 TRILLION DOLLARS of debt isn’t going to dissappear. Unless of course we hang all the board members of the “Federal Reserve” for TREASON. All Hail RON Paul, hope for America!!

  67. Jaime Says:

    Notice how the more successful Ron Paul becomes, the more articles like this pop up.

    “I’m guessing a lot more of his faithful are having the same fear.” Why don’t you do some real investigative journalism before using someone else’s opinion to justify your own? Of course Ron Paul isn’t perfect. No candidates ever are. That’s all your article really says.

    And as for these “controversial issues,” most Ron Paul supporters are fully aware of them, and we still all agree he’s the best man for the job. We discovered Paul through our own investigation and critical assessment of all the candidates up for consideration, and encourage any potential new supporters to do the same.

  68. Jason Bennett Says:

    I too am familiar with ALL of Dr. Ron Paul’s policies. This supporter, and you, may be failing to realize Dr. Paul’s greatest strength.

    It is not WHAT he votes for, it is WHY he votes for it. That said, he is not for immediately ending all entitlement programs; people have become adapted and accustomed to them, and need to be weaned off slowly.

    The What: He is against federal funding (and more importantly, legislating) of education. The WHY: The Constitution has no provision allowing the Federal Government to make policy or give funding in these areas. Education should be left to students, parents, teachers, administrators, and local communities. In the case of Universities, their respective State as well.

    The What: He’s against abortion (as an ob-gyn, can we blame him?), and wants to see Roe v Wade overturned. The WHY: He wants to see it overturned because Federal courts have no jurisdiction in a states’ rights issue, and the Federal government has no authority to either ban it OR subsidize it.

    The What: Ron Paul is against Universal Health Care. Gee, that sounds bad! Especially coming from a..doctor? Maybe he knows something we don’t. The WHY: Yet again, the Constitution gives no jurisdiction to the Federal Government in the area of health care. Certainly that involvement was not always present, yet we have always had hospitals and the like. There is no need for rules and regulations from Washington to determine practices and legal and illegal medicines in the sovereign states. Our health care prices has gone UP because of government’s managed care practices. The Federal Government just doesn’t have the money or authority to give Universal Health Care to everyone in America, and neither does it have the Authority to impose the huge taxes on everyone that such a program would require.

    That’s enough from me, I’ll let someone else do the rest :)

    So yes, I follow the movement of freedom with my eyes wide open. Its not about Dr. Ron Paul – its about the message of minimizing government while maximizing freedom.

  69. Chris Says:

    In regards to public education, if you knew anything about anything you would know that Public Education (or rather Socialist Education) breeds monopoly. America has always failed with monpoly, but has succeded with competition.

    Also, in regards to pro-life issues. Allow the states to decide, and the people to decided through their locally elected representatives.

    By the way, its our obligation to question science. He doesn’t deny global warming. But he does question peoples motives, like say maybe Al Gore.

  70. Bill Says:

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State.

    I’m not 100% sure that is actually his position but I’ll accept it as such based on the fact that our nation was founded on good, solid Christian values…. a moral center.

    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education.

    …and thank you that he’s not! The “educational system” (system being the operative word), is broken… a farce. The curriculum is flawed in that if it teaches any thing at all, it’s how to work within this system of fraud.

    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans.

    See #2

    4. He’s Not For National Health Care.

    Again, see #2 (more on this to follow*).

    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned.

    This is true, HOWEVER, he supports this galvanizing issue being handled on a state-to-state basis, as is Constitutional. Handling it in such a way supports the Constitutional concept of individual rights. This, ideally, gives everyone walking this earth an option: if you don’t like your states policy on that issue, move.

    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing.

    I was not aware that he held this position on that topic, and will look into that being factual (my sis is an environmental engineer in southern CA so I’m certainly on the “green” page).

    * The fact is, numbers 2 – 4 relate directly to financial issues… MONEY.. or what is taught throughout the “educational” process is money. Ron Pauls position regarding this issue is the most important piece of his platform, simply because it negates issues 2 – 4 as well as so many others. A return to the gold standard is critical to the long-term health of any nation… this is historical fact, many times before. One must bear in mind that it’s taken us 94 or so years for us to get this far off the financial track, so it may take some time before it can be righted. But also remember that a journey of 1,000 miles starts with one step, and the sooner we take it, the better.

  71. badunit Says:

    What does any of this matter if we don’t have a constitution?

  72. Tannim Says:

    *SIGH*

    We’ve been through this SOCAS stuff before, folks. Ad infinitum nauseum. One more time for the newbies and slow-to-get-it types:

    Establishment Clause + Free Exercise Clause = Separation of Church and State. No official religion + no stopping practicing religion = religion outside of government. Jefferson wrote it in Virginia and to Danbury. Madison wrote it into the First Amendment (not explicitly, people, implicitly!). The Supreme Court ruled it that way in 1868 and again in 1956 and it is settled law. That does not mean no religious people in government. It does mean no government law or policy based on religion not interfering with religion or religious practices (so long as other individual rights are not violated, either!).

    As for the rest:

    The only area where I disagree with Dr. Paul on is the abortion issue. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-life personally from losing one of my own, but I can’t force that position on anyone else, so I’m politically pro-choice. But the abortion issue has as much to do with the question of the biological beginning of human life (TBD, in great debate) as it does the LEGAL beginning of human life (at birth). They are in tension and conflict, no doubt, hence there would be no debate. BUT…it’s also about personal responsibility, which is another tense debate. A person should be responsible enough to use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy and should not use abortion as a means of brith control as that is shirking their responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place. OTOH, a pregnancy that threatens the health or life of the woman should have abortion allowable. Abortion on demand for convenience, no. No abortion period, no. It is a complex issue. However, I believe this, and I admit my own personal bias up front because of my own loss: there is a loving home for all born children, and we need to either find it or make it. We will never resolve the issue, and the disagreements will continue.

    That being said, Roe v. Wade is a fine treatise on the application of legal rights in a proper context (NOT moral rights, which is different!). I suggest people go read it. It is based on the premise that a woman has a right to privacy in her medical decisions that the state should not interfere with under Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rules. I agree with that. I fear that an undermining of Roe v. Wade to the states will create a patchwork of rules that have a woman’s right upheld in some states and denied in others. That goes against the basic concept of the uniformity of our rights in this nation. That’s Dred Scot rules again. We cannot and should not go there.

    Either a woman has a constitutional right to make a free choice about her pregnancy in a free society, or she does not in an un-free society. Rights under the law are acknowledged at birth and not before, morally correct or not.

    As for Justin, man, you need to get off that fence. That picket spire you’re sitting on must really make your butt sore to put out junk like this post!

  73. Mark Rommel Says:

    1. He does believe in separation of Church and State.
    – He does not believe that the State should attack the Church on issues.
    (Your Argument is False)

    2. He supports the voucher system and to generally head in the direction of Private Education – which is much more efficient and cheaper.

    3. National Healthcare is the worst thing ever, it prevents competition and results in terrible service, the healthcare system has enough government intervention as it is. Watch John Stossel’s Special on Healthcare.

    4. Abortion is murder, and even if you believe it isn’t – it still should be handled at the local level not through an arbitrary ruling.

    5. Global Warming is not Man Made, carbon-dioxide levels rise hundreds of years after warming thus indicating that CO2 levels do not spur global warming rather the other way and around. The real cause of global warming is solar activity.

    6. Stop Pretending, how are you a Ron Paul Supporter? If you don’t agree with him, make slanderous remarks, and proclaim him as a flawed candidate in your title (don’t bullshit me – that another supporter said it, in the end it was your choice to use it).

  74. Scott McDonnell Says:

    Not sure if this has been pointed out above, but this supposed ‘supporter’ is copying and pasting an article from another blog that came from a site telling Liberals that they shouldn’t support Ron Paul, and should vote for Hillary instead. The only thing he changed was to claim he was a former Paul supporter.

    Justin, you do a disservice to have posted this without looking into where it came from.

    All I can say is if the OP is actually surprised about Ron Paul’s stances on these things…. DUH! Many of them are EXACTLY why we support Ron Paul. Yes, he’s right, socialists need not apply!

  75. Kris Says:

    I was going to reply, but all you wonderful Ron Paul supporters already know Dr. Paul’s message pretty well. I am proud to count myself among all of you very smart and enlightened people!

  76. Dustin Says:

    What is wrong with any of that which you listed? I agree with all 6 of those views.

  77. Beth Says:

    Heh. Obviously literacy is not a strong point among a good number of the disciples in the Cult of Ron Paul (the cult whose disciples think RP’s detractors are “stupid,” “brainwashed,” “socialist,” etc.).

    I just have to laugh because the comments here prove the point that RP’s disciples are blinded by their adoration for him. DARE NOT speak of the Reverend Doctor Saint Ron Paul in less than reverent terms, Infidel! Blasphemer!

    I have no idea where the Disciples got the idea that attacking RP’s doubters is an effective way to convince voters that RP is the messiah. When’s the last time a troll crapping in your comments changed your mind?

    Extremists suck.

    (BTW, nice copypasta in some of these comments. I’m starting to see the same copypasta in the comments of a lot of different blogs. Typical spamming troll behavior.)

  78. Robert Says:

    Most of the topics have been discussed in depth pretty well with the exception of the environment issue.

    As to global warming, I don’t believe I’ve ever hear him say that there is “no evidence” but that we don’t know all of the facts. As for his environmental policies in general his statements are that if we enforced property rights we could greatly curb pollution. A company does not have the right to pollute a river that flows downstream, or put pollutants into the air that will go to someone else’s property. If the government were to do more to protect people’s property rights (one of the functions of government that he agrees with), then that would be a good start. I believe he also mentioned that perhaps if we stopped granting oil companies huge subsidies it might help to curb our use (and thus pollution).

    It’s not perfect, but the main issues to me are foreign and economic. As the dollar slides into oblivion people are going to care much less for the environment. If we are prosperous and free we will be much more capable of dealing with the environment than if we’re taxed into starvation.

  79. Clay Shentrup Says:

    Most of the “flaws” you cite are benefits as I see it.

    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans
    4. He’s Not For National Health Care
    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

    Paul believes in the Bill of Rights, so your first comment is just wrong.

    We shouldn’t support schools with federal money. In fact I’d say we shouldn’t support them with taxes at all. People are responsible for paying for their children’s education. If you want to help those who can’t afford it, you’re perfectly free to give to charity. But you are NOT free to force others to spend their money as you see fit.

    If you support tax-funded national health care then you are both completely disrespectful of the rights of others’ to spend their earnings as they see fit, and you are blissfully ignorant about economic forces, and what kind of unholy pharmo-industrial alliance that would create (and is already starting to create).

    Paul does not believe in federally outlawing abortion. He believes it should be up to states to decide. I’m sure that you would admit you agree with that, if forced to admit to your own logical failings. That is, if abortion were federally illegal tomorrow, you’d be in favor of making it a state decision instead of a federal decision. Misunderstanding Paul’s position on abortion is a common sign of the unresearched knee-jerk anti-Paul reaction.

    As for global warming, you are again misrepresenting his position. He’s not saying that it’s not real. He’s saying that we have to be realistic about it and how much can really be done to curb it. And he’s saying that there is no absolute certainty about the severity of global warming.

    Please do your homework before writing articles.

  80. Joe Lawson Says:

    Here’s a serious flaw of all the other candidates – they are liars.

  81. Glen Says:

    If Ron Paul were to be elected President he would have a difficult time getting his proposals passed. But that is OK. His veto pen would be ready and full of ink. If he simply can stop Congress from increasing the size and influence of the federal government for four years that alone would be an enormous help to the welfare of America.

    It only takes a very little amount of freedom to cause enormous benefit. For example, look at the Reagan tax cuts. That launched a 25 year period of fantastic economic growth. Freedom is powerful. Freedom works. Even in little bits. Anyone who can limit the growth of government can cause powerfully positive things to happen.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party advocating freedom, the most powerful force there is.

  82. David Propst Says:

    I’m a Ron Paul supporter. I’ll take each “viewpoint” one at a time.
    1. He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State — This statement is at best misleading and at worst false. He believes in the Constitution which says that the federal government shall make NO laws regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. School prayer and other such issues should be state issues.
    2. He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education — I’m not sure why this would be a problem. I’m not for federally supported education. In fact, I believe the federal government’s interference in education has had horrible effects. There seems to be an assumption here that “Federally Supported Public Education” is a good thing. Where’s the evidence? There’s is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
    3. Yeah, That Means No College Loans — That doesn’t mean “no college loans.” It means the federal government will not subsidize college loans. Without the federal government mucking around in education, the cost would go down.
    4. He’s Not For National Health Care — Again, there is an assumption here that National Health Care is a good thing. My father never had medical insurance until just before I was born in 1967. He didn’t even buy medical insurance before my older brother was born. Why? Because he wasn’t rich? Far from it. The fact is he didn’t have to because it wasn’t that expensive to go to a doctor or to the hospital. The cost has risen significantly since the government started “managing” health care. That’s why medical companies and HMOs have lobbyists in Washington. Look at the facts. Look at the history. No one should want National Health Care.
    5. He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned — He is against abortion, but he also doesn’t believe that it’s an issue the federal government should be involved in. Again, he’s a constitutionalist. Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional whether you like it or not. I think it’s pretty amazing that a man who has such strong beliefs about abortion still doesn’t believe that the federal government should enforce his beliefs. That’s very rare. But, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to undermine it in support of his own agenda. I think we used to call that integrity.
    6. He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing — It’s not. Far from it. And, whether he believes it or not shouldn’t really matter. If a president believes in the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, then the president’s individual beliefs shouldn’t really matter that much.
    Anyway, thanks. Now I’m more convinced than ever that Ron Paul is the only candidate I can support.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: